Casting in an anti-magic field?

[Doorhandle]

I know Pathfinder a LOT better than 3.5, and I have heard about being able to cast in an anti-magic field more than once.

So, playground, tell me: How is this done in third edition, and how many ways CAN it be done?

[Thomasinx]

I know Pathfinder a LOT better than 3.5, and I have heard about being able to cast in an anti-magic field more than once.

So, playground, tell me: How is this done in third edition, and how many ways CAN it be done?

Invoke magic. (9th level spell as a swift action, lets you cast another spell of 4th or lower in an antimagic field)

Although, in many cases you dont need to cast in an anti-magic field, instead you just need to be able to cast into an anti-magic field. For instance, the spell 'orb of fire' is a conjuration spell that creates an actual orb of fire. Once the orb enters an anti-magic field, it still exists and still does damage. (As opposed to evocation spells like fireball, which do not actually create real fire).

Another thing that can cast into AMF's are psionic crystal shards, if I remember correctly...

[Lostbutseeking]

The initiate of mystra feat also allows casting in AMF's and dead magic zones.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I know of three ways off the top of my head:
Invoke Magic spell, Lords of Madness.
Initiate of Mystra feat, Player's Guide to Faerun.
Extraordinary Spell Aim feat, Complete Adventurer, only if you cast the AMF.

[Epiphanis]

Although, in many cases you dont need to cast in an anti-magic field, instead you just need to be able to cast into an anti-magic field. For instance, the spell 'orb of fire' is a conjuration spell that creates an actual orb of fire. Once the orb enters an anti-magic field, it still exists and still does damage. (As opposed to evocation spells like fireball, which do not actually create real fire).

That again? Isn't that the most obvious misinterpretation of a rule ever? But still people talk about it like its the gospel of their discredited religion. No, you can't cast any of the Orb spells into an anti magic field. Anti magic fields cancel out magic, but the lasting "effects" of instantaneous duration creation spells don't wink out of existence the way other magical effects do. So, for example, if you Create Water outside an anti magic field and then carry it in (or the field appears around it later) the water doesn't go away the way a summoned creature would. However, you couldn't make the created water first appear inside an active AMF. An Orb spell, even if originating outside the AMF, still has magic going on during it's instantaneous life span; in addition to conjuring real fire or acid or whatever, the magic is holding it in an unnatural sphere shape and impelling it towards the target. That magic disappears on entering an AMF, which would result in the sphere losing coherence and direction and, at best, a blob of something falling to the floor at the edge of the AMF. Sure, the rules could have been written a little more clearly (although AMF was written years before Orb spells were even contemplated and didnt anticipate them) but shouldn't this be obvious? This is twinky sophistry at its worst.

[Psyren]

It's not "twinky sophistry," it's RAW. You can houserule otherwise at your table by all means, but without RAW we have no baseline to agree upon, and your reading is simply incorrect.

Orbs are instantaneous conjurations, and instantaneous conjurations are not suppressed by AMF.



Another thing that can cast into AMF's are psionic crystal shards, if I remember correctly...

Correct, thanks to transparency specifically equalizing Metacreativity and Conjuration.

[Epiphanis]

It's not "twinky sophistry," it's RAW. You can houserule otherwise at your table by all means, but without RAW we have no baseline to agree upon, and your reading is simply incorrect.

Orbs are instantaneous conjurations, and instantaneous conjurations are not suppressed by AMF.

Except that's not what the RAW actually says.

[Urpriest]

Except that's not what the RAW actually says.

Ok, point to me where the RAW says that magic holds the fire in a spherical shape. Specifically, point to me where the RAW says that magic which is not instantaneous conjuration magic holds the fire in a spherical shape.

[Psyren]

Except that's not what the RAW actually says.

That is in fact exactly what it says.


(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

And if you really want to get technical, an orb of fire is actually a glob of acid that somehow deals fire damage.

[Boci]

Epiphanis might be referring to the rule in core which states that conjuration spells that create energy allow for SR or something, indicating that the initial intention of the designers was to make spell like of orb of X subject to spell resistance. Unfortunately, specific trumps general, so that core rule has no place in this discussion.

Slightly off topic, the orbs are instantaneous. Does that mean they do not disappear after the attack? The rules state that instantaneous conjurations create objects, and the spell doesn't mention them going away.

[Mithril Leaf]

Same deal for Psionics of the Metacreativity Discipline, such as crystal shard.
Creation
A power of the creation subdiscipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created creature or object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin film of glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence.



Epiphanis might be referring to the rule in core which states that conjuration spells that create energy allow for SR or something, indicating that the initial intention of the designers was to make spell like of orb of X subject to spell resistance. Unfortunately, specific trumps general, so that core rule has no place in this discussion.

Slightly off topic, the orbs are instantaneous. Does that mean they do not disappear after the attack? The rules state that instantaneous conjurations create objects, and the spell doesn't mention them going away.

They disappear after the attack because they expend their energy, but if you don't use them for anything I'm pretty sure they last indefinitely. Freaky.

[Urpriest]

They disappear after the attack because they expend their energy, but if you don't use them for anything I'm pretty sure they last indefinitely. Freaky.

Yes, but since there is no way to cast them without using them, this never comes up.

[Mithril Leaf]

Yes, but since there is no way to cast them without using them, this never comes up.

Unless there were some way to catch them without expending them. Like a spellblade almost, but not quite. *Ponders*

[animewatcha]

So to be specific about orb of X. From outside of AMF. Cast it at someone inside AMF then target suffers no ill effect. Cast it at someone outside the AMF with the AMF being 'between' and they suffer the orb of X effect?

[Mithril Leaf]

So to be specific about orb of X. From outside of AMF. Cast it at someone inside AMF then target suffers no ill effect. Cast it at someone outside the AMF with the AMF being 'between' and they suffer the orb of X effect?

So long as the caster makes the ranged touch attack and is outside the AMF, the target suffer the spell's effect.

[Tvtyrant]

Epiphanis might be referring to the rule in core which states that conjuration spells that create energy allow for SR or something, indicating that the initial intention of the designers was to make spell like of orb of X subject to spell resistance. Unfortunately, specific trumps general, so that core rule has no place in this discussion.

Slightly off topic, the orbs are instantaneous. Does that mean they do not disappear after the attack? The rules state that instantaneous conjurations create objects, and the spell doesn't mention them going away.

I don't know about whether they are destroyed or not when they hit, but I do know someone with Snatch Arrow can catch them out of the air by RAW and collect them.

[Mithril Leaf]

I don't know about whether they are destroyed or not when they hit, but I do know someone with Snatch Arrow can catch them out of the air by RAW and collect them.

And there's the method. We can now collect orbs of force.

[Slipperychicken]

And there's the method. We can now collect orbs of force.

There must be a way to weaponize this. Can they be used after catching to deal their Xd4 damage? Improvised sling bullets?

[Urpriest]

So to be specific about orb of X. From outside of AMF. Cast it at someone inside AMF then target suffers no ill effect. Cast it at someone outside the AMF with the AMF being 'between' and they suffer the orb of X effect?

Cast it at whoever, and the target gets hurt. It's just like hurling a boulder at the guy in the AMF, just the boulder is made of X.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So long as the caster makes the ranged touch attack and is outside the AMF, the target suffer the spell's effect.
For clarity: it doesn't matter where the target is in relation to the AMF, they suffer damage.

And there's the method. We can now collect orbs of force.

Xtreme soccer! The ball hits you? YOU TAKE LETHAL DAMAGE!

[Mithril Leaf]

For clarity: it doesn't matter where the target is in relation to the AMF, they suffer damage.

Indeed. So long as the caster isn't.

Also, if they still deal the damage they would have, spend a night hucking orbs of force at whoever in your party can catch them, in the morning use telekinesis to hurl them all at once towards whoever NEEDS to die. Bonus points for empowered ones.

[Urpriest]

Indeed. So long as the caster isn't.

Also, if they still deal the damage they would have, spend a night hucking orbs of force at whoever in your party can catch them, in the morning use telekinesis to hurl them all at once towards whoever NEEDS to die. Bonus points for empowered ones.

Problem is, we don't know that it's contact with the sphere specifically that deals the damage. It could also be the velocity with which the spell hurls it.

[Mithril Leaf]

Problem is, we don't know that it's contact with the sphere specifically that deals the damage. It could also be the velocity with which the spell hurls it.

Quite right, hence the if.

[Epiphanis]

You have all been misreading this for years. The RAW description of antimagic field says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast in the area...". NOT excepting instantaneous conjurations. The only exception applicable is in parentheses at the end of a paragraph dealing with summoned creatures entering a preexisting field or where a field appears around it after it is already summoned. The parentheses distinguish the lingering effects of instantaneous conjurations that were previously cast from ongoing summoning spells, and expressly states this is because "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.". The spell is suppressed like any other during its instantaneous duration, so under the rules as written any instantaneous conjuration cast into an existing AMF will be suppressed like any other spell and no effects will come into existence. The opposite viewpoint is only tenable if you presume the instantaneous duration terminates upon the orb appearing in your palm, but the orb of acid spell template states that the orb not only appears, but "shoots from your palm at its target..."

The thing that gets me is that when all the proponents of instantaneous creation trumping AMFs scream that theirs is the only possible interpretation of the RAW, when in they took one written parenthetical exception out of context, made it contradict everything else the antimagic field description said, gave it an interpretation that confounded common sense, and it then highfived each other for making an already broken system even more broken.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You have all been misreading this for years. The RAW description of antimagic field says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast in the area...". NOT excepting instantaneous conjurations. The only exception applicable is in parentheses at the end of a paragraph dealing with summoned creatures entering a preexisting field or where a field appears around it after it is already summoned. The parentheses distinguish the lingering effects of instantaneous conjurations that were previously cast from ongoing summoning spells, and expressly states this is because "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.". The spell is suppressed like any other during its instantaneous duration, so under the rules as written any instantaneous conjuration cast into an existing AMF will be suppressed like any other spell and no effects will come into existence. The opposite viewpoint is only tenable if you presume the instantaneous duration terminates upon the orb appearing in your palm, but the orb of acid spell template states that the orb not only appears, but "shoots from your palm at its target..."

The thing that gets me is that when all the proponents of instantaneous creation trumping AMFs scream that theirs is the only possible interpretation of the RAW, when in they took one written parenthetical exception out of context, made it contradict everything else the antimagic field description said, gave it an interpretation that confounded common sense, and it then highfived each other for making an already broken system even more broken.

So being in parentheses automatically means the text is not RAW? Because it's right there in Psyren's post.

Here is the full paragraph.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

It clearly states that conjurations with a duration of "instantaneous" are not affected by the field.

[Mithril Leaf]

You have all been misreading this for years. The RAW description of antimagic field says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast in the area...". NOT excepting instantaneous conjurations. The only exception applicable is in parentheses at the end of a paragraph dealing with summoned creatures entering a preexisting field or where a field appears around it after it is already summoned. The parentheses distinguish the lingering effects of instantaneous conjurations that were previously cast from ongoing summoning spells, and expressly states this is because "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.". The spell is suppressed like any other during its instantaneous duration, so under the rules as written any instantaneous conjuration cast into an existing AMF will be suppressed like any other spell and no effects will come into existence. The opposite viewpoint is only tenable if you presume the instantaneous duration terminates upon the orb appearing in your palm, but the orb of acid spell template states that the orb not only appears, but "shoots from your palm at its target..."

The thing that gets me is that when all the proponents of instantaneous creation trumping AMFs scream that theirs is the only possible interpretation of the RAW, when in they took one written parenthetical exception out of context, made it contradict everything else the antimagic field description said, gave it an interpretation that confounded common sense, and it then highfived each other for making an already broken system even more broken.

I want you to ask yourself a question.
What is more like more likely, that a single person has just disproven a decade of rulings, or that a massive community that has probably had this argument and come to the same conclusion on a dozen occasions is in fact correct?
Because you are claiming the former at the moment.

[Psyren]

You have all been misreading this for years.

You're welcome to believe that, but until you find a quote that contradicts mine, you're wrong.


The parentheses distinguish the lingering effects of instantaneous conjurations that were previously cast from ongoing summoning spells, and expressly states this is because "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.".

The qualifier "lingering effect" is your own invention, and appears nowhere in the AMF description.

All Orb spells say:


Effect: One orb of {element}

Therefore, the orb itself is what is not suppressed.



The thing that gets me is that when all the proponents of instantaneous creation trumping AMFs scream that theirs is the only possible interpretation of the RAW,

No one is "screaming." You are simply wrong.

And AMF is hardly the great equalizer that will fix 3.5 anyway.

[Deophaun]

Epiphanis, while I think your interpretation is RAI, and how I would rule as a DM, RAW says the orbs work. Not even the context of the quote changes it.

I want you to ask yourself a question.
What is more like more likely, that a single person has just disproven a decade of rulings, or that a massive community that has probably had this argument and come to the same conclusion on a dozen occasions is in fact correct?
Because you are claiming the former at the moment.
So, the Sun revolves around the Earth, then?

[Boci]

They disappear after the attack because they expend their energy

Unless I am missing something, they don't by RAW. The spell doesn't mention it, and since force orbs do not exist in the real world, we cannot argue that logically they would fall apart, because we don't know that.

[Psyren]

Again, technically a "force orb" is a ball of acid that somehow happens to deal force damage. At least, it would be for any of my players that wanted to gather up orbs of force to chuck at their enemies later :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

I think there is actually an interesting point here. The Range of the Orb spells is Close, and they are Instantaneous Conjurations. From the Conjuration description:

The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
and

A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates

So the bead streaking from the hand is just an appearance thing. In reality, the Orb is conjured at its destination. The question then becomes, who here thinks that the AMF rules allow you to make an Instantaneous Conjuration appear inside an AMF?

[Mithril Leaf]

So, the Sun revolves around the Earth, then?

If we had a completely accurate text stating that in fact, the Sun did indeed relolve around the earth, and the world was based on said text, then yes, it would.

[Psyren]

That's no issue UP - your hand is the "designated place," and it's also "within range" otherwise you wouldn't be close enough to shoot the target. In other words, I stand within close range, designate my hand, orb forms there, then shoots off to target - all parameters satisfied.

[Deophaun]

If we had a completely accurate text stating that in fact, the Sun did indeed relolve around the earth, and the world was based on said text, then yes, it would.
We did have a completely accurate text stating the opposite (text is simply a symbolic representation of data, much like our 2d view of the sky), and for thousands of years everyone read the text and came to the opposite conclusion.

So, again, Sun still revolves around the Earth, in your view, right?

[Boci]

I think there is actually an interesting point here. The Range of the Orb spells is Close, and they are Instantaneous Conjurations. From the Conjuration description:

and


So the bead streaking from the hand is just an appearance thing. In reality, the Orb is conjured at its destination. The question then becomes, who here thinks that the AMF rules allow you to make an Instantaneous Conjuration appear inside an AMF?

Would specific override general? The whole "shoots from your palm" is probably meant to be fluff, but on a RAW level it is hard to tell, unless I missed something.

[Urpriest]

That's no issue UP - your hand is the "designated place," and it's also "within range" otherwise you wouldn't be close enough to shoot the target. In other words, I stand within close range, designate my hand, orb forms there, then shoots off to target - all parameters satisfied.

In that interpretation, there would be no limit to where you can shoot it. The object appeared in range, instantaneous conjurations can leave range afterwards just fine.

[Psyren]

In that interpretation, there would be no limit to where you can shoot it. The object appeared in range, instantaneous conjurations can leave range afterwards just fine.

Right, that would be the general rule - which the specific spell description overrides.

I think your disconnect stems from assuming "the place the spellcaster designates" and "the target of the orb spell" have to be the same location. There's no reason to be designating that orbs appear inside AMFs, so why give yourself headaches? Designate outside, shoot them in.

[ahenobarbi]

We did have a completely accurate text stating the opposite (text is simply a symbolic representation of data, much like our 2d view of the sky), and for thousands of years everyone read the text and came to the opposite conclusion.

So, again, Sun still revolves around the Earth, in your view, right?

Basically the original statement wasn't like "everyone so far disagrees with you, you can not possibly be right" it was like "everyone so far disagrees with you, so you are probably wrong, make your argument more detailed".

In your sun-around-earth example: when someone came up with the idea that earth rotates around the sun he was expected to deliver good argument that it does. Galileo didn't (he insisted that earth orbit was perfect cicrle (which is wrong) and the observations did not confirm his theory (because it was wrong)). Later folks came up with correct solution (elliptical orbits) and the facts matched the theory and the theory was accepted.

The moral is: if you think you're right put in more effort to show us that you are :smallbiggrin:

[Urpriest]

Right, that would be the general rule - which the specific spell description overrides.

I think your disconnect stems from assuming "the place the spellcaster designates" and "the target of the orb spell" have to be the same location. There's no reason to be designating that orbs appear inside AMFs, so why give yourself headaches? Designate outside, shoot them in.

I'm trying to dig up more specific rules on this, and I realized something even more bizarre: the spell references a target, but doesn't have a target entry. That means, at best, that there is no reason to assume the caster chooses the target. At worst, all mentions of a target in the spell description should be ignored.

While this is sort of true for rays, they at least are defined as operating like a ranged weapon. Generalized ranged-touch spells have no such classification.

[Psyren]

Basically the original statement wasn't like "everyone so far disagrees with you, you can not possibly be right" it was like "everyone so far disagrees with you, so you are probably wrong, make your argument more detailed".

In your sun-around-earth example: when someone came up with the idea that earth rotates around the sun he was expected to deliver good argument that it does. Galileo didn't (he insisted that earth orbit was perfect cicrle (which is wrong) and the observations did not confirm his theory (because it was wrong)). Later folks came up with correct solution (elliptical orbits) and the facts matched the theory and the theory was accepted.

The moral is: if you think you're right put in more effort to show us that you are :smallbiggrin:

Galileo's explanation wasn't perfect, but was still better than the prevailing one - "Sun orbits us because WER SPESHUL!!!!" (And to avoid religion I'll leave it at that.)

But to bring this analogy back down to earth - "AMF > Orbs because THAT'S FAIRER!" isn't a RAW argument. We might want it to be true for balance or other reasons, but the rules say otherwise.

[Epiphanis]

It clearly states that conjurations with a duration of "instantaneous" are not affected by the field.

Nope. It says THE EFFECTS OF the conjuration are not affected by the field, and ONLY because THE CONJURATION ITSELF IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. If the conjuration were still in effect when it entered the field it would be supressed and no effects would result.

Also, I appreciate Ur-Priest's acknowledgment that I may have a point, but I don't think it strictly necessary to distinguish where the conjuration "really" happens. The RAW Antimagic Field applies to any spell "cast into the area", which all the orb spells are, hence their range description. It's only if the conjuration spell's instantaneous duration is already ccomplete that it is distinguished from any other spell, because at that point there is no spell of any kind left. The difference is not so much where the conjuration actually occurs as it is when the quote instantaneous unquote duration ends. If it ends when you summon an orb in your palm, I'm wrong. If it ends when it hits (or misses) its Target, I'm right under the RAW, because you are casting into the area of the AMF. The RAW doesn't clarify because its writers didn't perceive a need to. I say that everything else the Antimagic Field description says, plus common sense, plus the reason that casters are already overpowered and do not need any breaks, all dictate that my interpretation should be deemed correct.

Also, do we need to bring Galileo into this? Unless we are living in the Matrix the heliocentric theory could be objectively tested against reality, unlike D&D rules, which were just arbitrarily made up by some guys and interpreted by some other guys.

[Boci]

Nope. It says THE EFFECTS OF the conjuration are not affected by the field

And the effect of the orb of X spells is all the same: an orb of X.

[Psyren]

The effect of an orb spell is the orb itself. This is made abundantly clear by the "Effect" line present in every single orb spell's entry. So why you continue to attempt to draw this artificial demarcation is beyond me.

Ninja'd by Boci

[Salanmander]

Galileo's explanation wasn't perfect, but was still better than the prevailing one - "Sun orbits us because WER SPESHUL!!!!" (And to avoid religion I'll leave it at that.)


Actually, Galileo's explanation /wasn't/ better than the prevailing one, at least at the time. Newton didn't come along and introduce gravity until later. Before the theory of gravity, there was no observational data that could distinguish between Galileo's "All planets revolve around the sun" and the prevailing "The sun revolves around the earth, and the non-sun celestial bodies revolve around the sun". I phrased that latter one that way in order to point out that, at the time, it was not established that the other planets and earth were the same sort of thing.

One could make an argument for Galileo's explanation being more "elegant", but it did not fit the existing data any better than the prevailing explanation.

Bringing it back to the original point of "a large community with a consistent opinion is more likely to be right", I think that still holds. It's just "more likely", not "absolutely certainly so". The burden of proof is on the party that wants to change the status quo. It also holds more for D&D than it does for science, because in science there are data that have yet to be discovered. In D&D we aren't getting any more information.

[Gavinfoxx]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10104

Just read that, anyone involved who hasn't read that!

[ahenobarbi]

Actually, Galileo's explanation /wasn't/ better than the prevailing one, at least at the time. Newton didn't come along and introduce gravity until later. Before the theory of gravity, there was no observational data that could distinguish between Galileo's "All planets revolve around the sun" and the prevailing "The sun revolves around the earth, and the non-sun celestial bodies revolve around the sun". I phrased that latter one that way in order to point out that, at the time, it was not established that the other planets and earth were the same sort of thing.

thanks for clearing that for me :smallsmile:



Also, do we need to bring Galileo into this? Unless we are living in the Matrix the heliocentric theory could be objectively tested against reality, unlike D&D rules, which were just arbitrarily made up by some guys and interpreted by some other guys.

Well there is a problem with word "objectively", there is a lot of space for mistakes and cheating in science so we have to hope all mistakes/cheats were found via repeated experimentation.


On the point. Spell description says


The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result

The important part is


The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field

the "because" part is merely explanation for curious readers, not a rule.

[Epiphanis]

I want you to ask yourself a question.
What is more like more likely, that a single person has just disproven a decade of rulings, or that a massive community that has probably had this argument and come to the same conclusion on a dozen occasions is in fact correct?
Because you are claiming the former at the moment.

LOL.

Rulings by whom? Has anybody at WotC ever come down on this issue one way or another? And no, I'm not the first to come up with this interpretation, I have heard it from others at points over the years (although frankly I suspect my interpretation is so intuitive it only would be an issue worth bringing up among hardcore optimizers and/or munchkins.) People still argue quite a bit about what the wording of the US Constitution from 200 years ago really means, as well as the proper interpretation of Biblical testaments written millennia in the past. I think an eight year old rule issue that has only debated among fanboys of a discontinued game may be trivial, but I don't think its unassailably settled. If its worth discussing at all, I guess its worth pointing out from time to time that the so-called prevailing opinion amongst the most vocal nethacks is NOT universally accepted.

[Mithril Leaf]

LOL.

Rulings by whom? Has anybody at WotC ever come down on this issue one way or another? And no, I'm not the first to come up with this interpretation, I have heard it from others at points over the years (although frankly I suspect my interpretation is so intuitive it only would be an issue worth bringing up among hardcore optimizers and/or munchkins.) People still argue quite a bit about what the wording of the US Constitution from 200 years ago really means, as well as the proper interpretation of Biblical testaments written millennia in the past. I think an eight year old rule issue that has only debated among fanboys of a discontinued game may be trivial, but I don't think its unassailably settled. If its worth discussing at all, I guess its worth pointing out from time to time that the so-called prevailing opinion amongst the most vocal nethacks is NOT universally accepted.

The fact of the matter is that the general ruling of RAW is largely accepted and you didn't provide anything approaching conclusive evidence to the contrary. You have to work harder than the amount of time you invested to prove the status quo wrong.

I did not intend to come off as blatently ignoring everything you said, but when people come out of nowhere and tell everyone they're wrong without actually citing any evidence, it just bothers me a lot.

[Psyren]

Epiphanis: I'm all for overturning conventional wisdom, if it's warranted. So let's discuss it then. Cite where the effect of an orb spell is not the orb itself.

[Epiphanis]

I did not intend to come off as blatently ignoring everything you said, but when people come out of nowhere and tell everyone they're wrong without actually citing any evidence, it just bothers me a lot.

Sorry it bothers you that much, but you are still wrong. Should I rephrase that?

It's equally true to say that I interpret the rules as written differently than you. When the description of Antimagic Field was written the Orb spells hadn't been thought of yet. When the Orb spells were written, the drafters of it didn't include an express description of how they interact with antimagic fields; I suspect but cannot be certain that if it occurred to them at all they thought as I do, that AMFs obviously would block them like any other spell. It is obvious to me, at least, that "orbs vs. AMFs" is, at best, a rules exploit based in a very, very questionable reading of the rules. Does anybody seriously think that this was an intended feature of the game mechanics, that orb spells were intentionally designed to counter AMFs? I am pretty darn sure this was an unanticipated exploit -- a bug, not a feature. But its a bug grounded in a reading of one phrase, taken completely out of context, that never actually says clearly that the exploit would work. Given multiple possible interpretations, some idiot chose the one possible reading that made the least sense but gave his wizard character more unnecessarily invincible, and repeated it to like-minded sophomores until the majority accepted it as if it were an actual express rule, which it isn't.

But its just wrong.

From a fluff perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Orbs aren't conjured nonmagical items that you call into existence in your hand and then throw like grenades into an antimagic zone. How does an orb of acid hold together nonmagically? Or an orb of sound?

From a mechanical perspective, it makes less sense. Why bolster the most ludicrously
overpowered classes to nerf one of the very few tactics effective against them?

From a hidebound, strict interpretationist perspective, the rule doesn't actually say what Brilliantgameologists.com and so many others have oversimplified it as. Only effects established as surviving past the duration of an instantaneous creation spell are unaffected by an AMF. You ask me to show where it says an orb doesn't survive the duration of the spell? I ask you to show me where it says one does. It simply isn't addressed at all in the RAW, and of the two possible interpretations, mine works better on every possible level except on the munchkin impulse to make your silly overpowered wizard as nearly invulnerable as possible.

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

[Psyren]

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

Still waiting for that cite.

[Boci]

You ask me to show where it says an orb doesn't survive the duration of the spell? I ask you to show me where it says one does.

The effect of instantaneous conjuration is not suppressed in an AMF. That much is clear to you as well (I think). Orb of X is an instantaneous conjuration, that much is clear. The effect of an orb of x spell, is an orb of x, as per the "effect:" line in the spell's description. Why does this not satisfy your request?

[Zale]

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

I don't think it's wise to make blanket statements like that.

You have yet to supply any rule that states that Orbs dissipate in an AMF.

They are the effects of Instantaneous Conjurations, which do not disappear in an AMF.

Now, you could argue that the spell conjures them at the target rather than at the caster, which would prevent them from being cast in an AMF. However, that does not appear to be what you are claiming.

[ahenobarbi]

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

No. A few people already repeated RAW argument (effects of instantaneous conjurations don't disappear & orbs spells are instantaneous conjurations & orbs are effects of the spells => orbs don't disappear). You did not point any flaws in the argument. Nor did you present any argument to the contrary. So even if you were right you did nothing to prove it. So everyone is in their right to think you are wrong.

What you did is arguing that it is intended/better balanced/better fitting fluff for orbs not to work when cast into AMF. Which is a correct argument for establishing a house rule that they don't. But which doesn't matter at all in RAW discussion.

[WalkingTarget]

Sorry it bothers you that much, but you are still wrong. Should I rephrase that?

It's equally true to say that I interpret the rules as written differently than you. When the description of Antimagic Field was written the Orb spells hadn't been thought of yet. When the Orb spells were written, the drafters of it didn't include an express description of how they interact with antimagic fields; I suspect but cannot be certain that if it occurred to them at all they thought as I do, that AMFs obviously would block them like any other spell. It is obvious to me, at least, that "orbs vs. AMFs" is, at best, a rules exploit based in a very, very questionable reading of the rules. Does anybody seriously think that this was an intended feature of the game mechanics, that orb spells were intentionally designed to counter AMFs? I am pretty darn sure this was an unanticipated exploit -- a bug, not a feature. But its a bug grounded in a reading of one phrase, taken completely out of context, that never actually says clearly that the exploit would work. Given multiple possible interpretations, some idiot chose the one possible reading that made the least sense but gave his wizard character more unnecessarily invincible, and repeated it to like-minded sophomores until the majority accepted it as if it were an actual express rule, which it isn't.

But its just wrong.

From a fluff perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Orbs aren't conjured nonmagical items that you call into existence in your hand and then throw like grenades into an antimagic zone. How does an orb of acid hold together nonmagically? Or an orb of sound?

From a mechanical perspective, it makes less sense. Why bolster the most ludicrously
overpowered classes to nerf one of the very few tactics effective against them?

From a hidebound, strict interpretationist perspective, the rule doesn't actually say what Brilliantgameologists.com and so many others have oversimplified it as. Only effects established as surviving past the duration of an instantaneous creation spell are unaffected by an AMF. You ask me to show where it says an orb doesn't survive the duration of the spell? I ask you to show me where it says one does. It simply isn't addressed at all in the RAW, and of the two possible interpretations, mine works better on every possible level except on the munchkin impulse to make your silly overpowered wizard as nearly invulnerable as possible.

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

Another point here: You seem to be arguing on the basis of Rules As Intended (you say things about how the Orb spells hadn't been thought up by the time that AMF was written and wasn't foreseen, etc). I tend to agree that at least certain Orb of [X] spells don't make a lot of logical sense as being immune to AMFs, but they are Instantaneous-duration Conjuration spells, which by Rules As Written means that they are immune.

Edit - ...aaaand multi-ninja'd

[Randomguy]

When the description of Antimagic Field was written the Orb spells hadn't been thought of yet. When the Orb spells were written, the drafters of it didn't include an express description of how they interact with antimagic fields; I suspect but cannot be certain that if it occurred to them at all they thought as I do, that AMFs obviously would block them like any other spell. It is obvious to me, at least, that "orbs vs. AMFs" is, at best, a rules exploit based in a very, very questionable reading of the rules.

Actually, there is an Instantaneous conjuration spell, like the orb spells, which can be cast into an antimagic field, in Core. Acid splash. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidSplash.htm) So it's not like they didn't consider the existence of an instantaneous, conjuration(creation) attack spell, since there already was one.

And even if the person that made AMF (or the person that made the Orb spells) didn't consider that some spells could be cast into an antimagic field, it wouldn't be a "very, very questionable reading of the rules". It would be what the rules actually say, but not what the creators wanted them to say. Gamers play by "Rules as Written", not "Rules as Intended", because it's impossible to know what the rules actually intended. Not to mention that there isn't any Errata for this issue.


"In "reality", taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct."

[Mithril Leaf]

Sorry it bothers you that much, but you are still wrong. Should I rephrase that?

It's equally true to say that I interpret the rules as written differently than you. When the description of Antimagic Field was written the Orb spells hadn't been thought of yet. When the Orb spells were written, the drafters of it didn't include an express description of how they interact with antimagic fields; I suspect but cannot be certain that if it occurred to them at all they thought as I do, that AMFs obviously would block them like any other spell. It is obvious to me, at least, that "orbs vs. AMFs" is, at best, a rules exploit based in a very, very questionable reading of the rules. Does anybody seriously think that this was an intended feature of the game mechanics, that orb spells were intentionally designed to counter AMFs? I am pretty darn sure this was an unanticipated exploit -- a bug, not a feature. But its a bug grounded in a reading of one phrase, taken completely out of context, that never actually says clearly that the exploit would work. Given multiple possible interpretations, some idiot chose the one possible reading that made the least sense but gave his wizard character more unnecessarily invincible, and repeated it to like-minded sophomores until the majority accepted it as if it were an actual express rule, which it isn't.

But its just wrong.

From a fluff perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Orbs aren't conjured nonmagical items that you call into existence in your hand and then throw like grenades into an antimagic zone. How does an orb of acid hold together nonmagically? Or an orb of sound?

From a mechanical perspective, it makes less sense. Why bolster the most ludicrously
overpowered classes to nerf one of the very few tactics effective against them?

From a hidebound, strict interpretationist perspective, the rule doesn't actually say what Brilliantgameologists.com and so many others have oversimplified it as. Only effects established as surviving past the duration of an instantaneous creation spell are unaffected by an AMF. You ask me to show where it says an orb doesn't survive the duration of the spell? I ask you to show me where it says one does. It simply isn't addressed at all in the RAW, and of the two possible interpretations, mine works better on every possible level except on the munchkin impulse to make your silly overpowered wizard as nearly invulnerable as possible.

So, those of you who disagree with me? You are wrong.

I still don't understand how this in any way proves to me that you are right. You've most certainly convinced me you think you are right though. Also convinced me that you believe that you are smarter than just about everyone else in this thread. When you prove either of those, your beliefs may very well be justified.

This xkcd (http://xkcd.com/675/) is what our conversation made me think of.

[Thomasinx]

Sorry it bothers you that much, but you are still wrong. Should I rephrase that?

There's no need for you to rephrase anything. Your opinion is quite clear, and completely unsupported by any evidence.



From a fluff perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Orbs aren't conjured nonmagical items that you call into existence in your hand and then throw like grenades into an antimagic zone. How does an orb of acid hold together nonmagically? Or an orb of sound?

Considering how an orb of acid is literally lobbing ACID at someone, it seems to work remarkably well in every way when you consider lobbing it into an AMF. And in regard to your statement about AMF predating Orb of acid, lets look at acid splash (brought up by another playgrounder), which is in the PHB.



Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Effect: One missile of acid
Duration: Instantaneous




The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.

So, the effect (One missile of acid) of the instantaneous conjuration (acid splash) is not affected by an antimagic field, because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result (Lobbing acid at someone)

I don't know how you can read this any other way. The rules are quite clear, and make sense.

[Psyren]

This xkcd (http://xkcd.com/675/) is what our conversation made me think of.

Also this one. (http://xkcd.com/1081/)

[animewatcha]

So being in parentheses automatically means the text is not RAW? Because it's right there in Psyren's post.

Here is the full paragraph.


It clearly states that conjurations with a duration of "instantaneous" are not affected by the field.


(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

Isn't the issue at hand being the 'result' ? Meaning that orb of X can travel through AMF, but the result on impact ( damage and whatever secondary effect ) be the thing suppressed. Aka person outside AMF is affected normally, but person inside AMF at the beginning of the 'effect' is just fine.

[Psyren]

Isn't the issue at hand being the 'result' ? Meaning that orb of X can travel through AMF, but the result on impact ( damage and whatever secondary effect ) be the thing suppressed. Aka person outside AMF is affected normally, but person inside AMF at the beginning of the 'effect' is just fine.

But the "result" is the part that isn't suppressed. So even by that reading, the orbs should have full effect.

[Fable Wright]

I know of three ways off the top of my head:
Invoke Magic spell, Lords of Madness.
Initiate of Mystra feat, Player's Guide to Faerun.
Extraordinary Spell Aim feat, Complete Adventurer, only if you cast the AMF.

Question about the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat with the AMF: How, exactly, is that implemented? Do spells cast by the character still work if the area is outside the Antimagic Field? What about if they're cast within the Antimagic Field? Do spells currently affecting the character still work? Do spells cast into the Antimagic Field to affect the character not hit by the AMF still work? For example, a Fireball cast into the AMF to hit the one character unaffected by it? Do magic items being held by the character not affected by the AMF still hold their enchantments?

[Thomasinx]

Isn't the issue at hand being the 'result' ? Meaning that orb of X can travel through AMF, but the result on impact ( damage and whatever secondary effect ) be the thing suppressed. Aka person outside AMF is affected normally, but person inside AMF at the beginning of the 'effect' is just fine.

The 'result' in question is the result of casting an instantaneous conjuration. If you cast wall of stone, the stone doesn't wink out if someone casts an AMF, since the magic is already expended when the spell finished (the magic was used to create the wall, and the wall is the result). The same thing is true for acid splash: Magic is used to create the acid that is hurtled toward someone else, but the acid itself is entirely mundane.

This is one of the key differences between instantaneous conjuration spells, and evocation spells.

[Gavinfoxx]

No, actually, magic isn't used to create the acid: that's evocation.

For Conjuration, Magic is used to summon real acid from somewhere, like the Elemental Plane of Water or something.

[Mnemnosyne]

Nope. It says THE EFFECTS OF the conjuration are not affected by the field, and ONLY because THE CONJURATION ITSELF IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. If the conjuration were still in effect when it entered the field it would be supressed and no effects would result.

Also, I appreciate Ur-Priest's acknowledgment that I may have a point, but I don't think it strictly necessary to distinguish where the conjuration "really" happens. The RAW Antimagic Field applies to any spell "cast into the area", which all the orb spells are, hence their range description. It's only if the conjuration spell's instantaneous duration is already ccomplete that it is distinguished from any other spell, because at that point there is no spell of any kind left. The difference is not so much where the conjuration actually occurs as it is when the quote instantaneous unquote duration ends. If it ends when you summon an orb in your palm, I'm wrong. If it ends when it hits (or misses) its Target, I'm right under the RAW, because you are casting into the area of the AMF. The RAW doesn't clarify because its writers didn't perceive a need to. I say that everything else the Antimagic Field description says, plus common sense, plus the reason that casters are already overpowered and do not need any breaks, all dictate that my interpretation should be deemed correct.
The instantaneous duration ends when the orb is propelled along the path determined by the successful/failed touch attack roll. Once the orb has been conjured and set in motion, the duration of the spell is over, and all that remains is the effect: the conjured object, which is no more affected by an AMF than a rock is.

[Hyde]

No, actually, magic isn't used to create the acid: that's evocation.

For Conjuration, Magic is used to summon real acid from somewhere, like the Elemental Plane of Water or something.

Yes, that's why it's of the summoning subschool, not creation.

Oh wait.


Anyway, moving right along. Physics renders this debate irrelevant.

These things are true-
1)The spell creates actual acid (or fire, or force, or acid-force, or whatever)
2)The spell's damage is contingent on the actual acid hitting the target.
3)AMF does not slow or otherwise alter the course of mundane projectiles
4)The spell must be cast outside the AMF, where it imparts a direction and force to the orb of real and actual acid.
5) Inertia is a thing, and since there isn't a difference in the properties of the space on either side of the AMF, the actual orb of acid travels through space at the same direction and force regardless of how it's held together (or not), fulfilling the spell's damage condition of "hit the target with actual acid".

Basically, if you somehow pop a water balloon aimed at your head without affecting the trajectory of its contents (good luck) you still get wet.

So provided your physics work about the same in your fantasy world, interpreting it one way or the other effectively doesn't matter (although I'm inclined to agree with Psyren and Urpriest, et al.)

If you want the real problem with the spell- the effect (hurtling a ball of real something through space) happens somewhere between "instantaneously" or "around threeish seconds (the maximum length of a standard action, if you're being really liberal with the rules). The closer you get to "instantaneously" the closer you are to "basically at light speed"- at which point this (http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/)happens.

[Psyren]

No, actually, magic isn't used to create the acid: that's evocation.

For Conjuration, Magic is used to summon real acid from somewhere, like the Elemental Plane of Water or something.

That is the case for Conjuration (Calling) or Conjuration (Summoning) spells. But Conjuration (Creation) spells do work the way Thomas described. The orbs are assembled locally, not pulled from elsewhere (though you could make an argument that the component elements come from elsewhere, ultimately the distinction is academic.)

[Urpriest]

To make another point along these lines, I find Evocation is best described not as creating anything, but as acting. A Fireball spell does not create fire, a Fireball burns. A Lightning Bolt does not create lightning, a Lightning Bolt electrocutes. A Cone of Cold does not create ice, a Cone of Cold freezes. Etc. Hence why most Evocation spells allow spell resistance.